What 5G will mean for you..

[Magical Realist]

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-5g/

"It has been nearly a decade in the making, but 5G is finally becoming a reality. Carriers started rolling out fixed 5G to select cities in 2018, and mobile 5G will start making appearances in cities around the U.S. in 2019, with much more comprehensive rollouts expected in 2020.


Right now it seems like there are more questions about 5G than there are answers. People are wondering what 5G is, and if they’ll ever see it in their city, while others are more interested in 5G smartphones. And of course, there’s the debate about which carrier will have the best 5G service.

If you have questions, we’re here to help. Here’s everything you ever wanted to know about 5G..."

[C C]

While low-band spectrum offers great coverage area and penetration, there is a big drawback: Peak data speeds will top out around 100Mbps. [...] High-band spectrum is what most people think of when they think of 5G. It is often referred to as mmWave. High-band spectrum can offer peak speeds up to 10 Gbps and has very low latency.

Before getting to that section of "5G use cases" that outrun personal needs and phone activity not revolving around items like gaming and virtual reality... The reflexive, initial reaction would be: "What the heck is the mundane mobile junkie doing that even requires 100Mbs, much less an astonishing 10Gps?"

Even in terms of fixed-location, home internet speed the former borders on overkill for a household with a couple of laptops, tablets, or desktop computers (although a different story if a bevy of them are distributed over kids' rooms, kitchen, domestic office, external workshop, man-cave, she-shed, etc).

###

[stryder]

While low-band spectrum offers great coverage area and penetration, there is a big drawback: Peak data speeds will top out around 100Mbps. [...] High-band spectrum is what most people think of when they think of 5G. It is often referred to as mmWave. High-band spectrum can offer peak speeds up to 10 Gbps and has very low latency.

Before getting to that section of "5G use cases" that outrun personal needs and phone  activity not revolving around items like gaming and virtual reality... The reflexive, initial reaction would be: "What the heck is the mundane mobile junkie doing that even requires 100Mbs, much less an astonishing 10Gps?"

Even in terms of fixed-location, home internet speed the former borders on overkill for a household with a couple of laptops, tablets, or desktop computers (although a different story if a bevy of them are distributed over kids' rooms, kitchen, domestic office, external workshop, man-cave, she-shed, etc).

###

It can make sense in the cases of small businesses offering connection services to people inside their building or remote locations where their overall network coverage is otherwise spotty at best, although there are still points about why increase bandwidth to devices that in some respect have sucked out the consciousness of people (and in-part conscience in regards to influencers control over people online, through their infernal texting and "liking" #Metoo.)

More to the concern is the relevance of "safety" in regards to the radiofrequencies themselves. Currently companies are working with ethos and to my knowledge have not published studies (could be proven wrong if there is anything "recent" on the subject) on the impact of non-ionizing radiation, especially in the frequency ranges they are now moving into. I know it can be claimed that such fears can be unfounded, but if there really isn't anything to fear why is it covered with a mixture of mysticism and complete lack of evidence that would contradict such "paranoia"? The absence of such evidence should itself invoke fear and dread in anyone with any sense, otherwise there just falling for the corporate shills selling tactics. (okay so it might sound like I'm setting fire to tyres outside their office, while I can be overwhelmingly passionate about such concerns it doesn't undermine the necessity for better transparency about how exactly this is going to factor in on our health or our homoeostasis.)

I would like to see an experiment done involving shielding someone from radio-frequency from a year (or perhaps more) while maintaining a strict disciplined diet and then introducing them back to a particular range of non-ionizing radiation while maintaining such a diet, so as to see if there is any difference in the consistency of their hair growth. (I pose that hair ultimately is part of an evolutionary process to reduce radiation permeating skin (amongst other things like keeping warm), and that evolutionarily wise the reason for it being "dead" when it exits the body is that if live tissue was used in this manner to diffuse radiation, it would increase the chances of cellular mutation (Cancer? If I was a medical professional, my sights would be trained on how hair and specifically the chemistry and cell functions that are apart of both hair and cellular death like Keratin protein)

In any even checking to see any differences in thickness of hair could aid in understanding if non-ionising radiation has a direct impact on cellular changes and even if it is actually more harmful than currently anticipated.

[C C]

It can make sense in the cases of small businesses offering connection services to people inside their building or remote locations where their overall network coverage is otherwise spotty at best, although there are still points about why increase bandwidth to devices that in some respect have sucked out the consciousness of people (and in-part conscience in regards to influencers control over people online, through their infernal texting and "liking" #Metoo.)

[More to the concern is the relevance of "safety" in regards to the radiofrequencies themselves. Currently companies are working with ethos and to my knowledge have not published studies (could be proven wrong if there is anything "recent" on the subject) on the impact of non-ionizing radiation, especially in the frequency ranges they are now moving into. I know it can be claimed that such fears can be unfounded, but if there really isn't anything to fear why is it covered with a mixture of mysticism and complete lack of evidence that would contradict such "paranoia"? The absence of such evidence should itself invoke fear and dread in anyone with any sense, otherwise there just falling for the corporate shills selling tactics. (okay so it might sound like I'm setting fire to tyres outside their office, while I can be overwhelmingly passionate about such concerns it doesn't undermine the necessity for better transparency about how exactly this is going to factor in on our health or our homoeostasis.)

I would like to see an experiment done involving shielding someone from radio-frequency from a year (or perhaps more) while maintaining a strict disciplined diet and then introducing them back to a particular range of non-ionizing radiation while maintaining such a diet, so as to see if there is any difference in the consistency of their hair growth. (I pose that hair ultimately is part of an evolutionary process to reduce radiation permeating skin (amongst other things like keeping warm), and that evolutionarily wise the reason for it being "dead" when it exits the body is that if live tissue was used in this manner to diffuse radiation, it would increase the chances of cellular mutation (Cancer? If I was a medical professional, my sights would be trained on how hair and specifically the chemistry and cell functions that are apart of both hair and cellular death like Keratin protein)

In any even checking to see any differences in thickness of hair could aid in understanding if non-ionising radiation has a direct impact on cellular changes and even if it is actually more harmful than currently anticipated.

Count me as one those skeptical about assurances officially dispensed by health authorities and research regarding safety (including the systematic disparaging of any studies suggesting otherwise). Aside from the deep dependency of business and the huge profits from manufacturing/services, the overall population is so thoroughly addicted to a wireless lifestyle that there's nothing but unpopularity and career derailment to be garnered from discovering and popularizing negative consequences. Equivalent to the establishment slash science condemning or advising against promiscuous sexual activity, monetary entitlements, or whatever sufficiently analogous holy cows. Just as with a latter _x_, the "band aid route" is certainly a possibility, but rarely a suggestion of severely drawing back on immersing ourselves in progressively higher levels of invisible oscillations.

###